- 15 -
no showing that equivalent costs would not have been incurred for
nonmedical reasons. Even absent Mr. Alderman’s sight disability,
an identical scenario could have ensued if the spouses owned only
one car. Moreover, two cars might not have reduced overall
expenses in light of the outlays for the second automobile,
insurance, taxes, tags, licenses, maintenance, and repairs.
Thus, while the Court sympathizes with the hardships experienced
by petitioners in enabling Mr. Alderman to engage in his
important work as a math teacher, allowing a medical expense
deduction in these circumstances would be contrary to the
applicable section 213 rules.4
4 Having obviously expended significant time and effort
researching the issue, petitioners on brief cite a number of
revenue rulings, e.g., Rev. Rul. 83-33, 1983-1 C.B. 70; Rev. Rul.
71-48, 1971-1 C.B. 99; Rev. Rul. 70-606, 1970-2 C.B. 66; Rev.
Rul. 67-76, 1967-1 C.B. 70; and Rev. Rul. 66-80, 1966-1 C.B. 57,
as well as others. However, all of these rulings appear to be
consistent with the above-discussed standards, most deal with
issues involving the deductibility of various capital
expenditures, and none hold or suggest that the costs of
commuting to and from an individual’s place of business should
qualify under sec. 213. For instance, Rev. Rul. 66-80, supra,
1966-1 C.B. 57, sanctioned deduction of costs for equipment to
adapt an automobile for handicapped use but warned:
However, irrespective of the physical condition of
the individual, the costs of operating the automobile,
as a means of transportation that is not primarily for
and essential to medical care, are not allowable
medical expense deductions within the limitations of
section 213 of the Code. For example, costs of
commuting to or from the individual’s place of business
or employment are nondeductible personal expenses. * *
*
(continued...)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011